Comment

Comments on stories are a way for The Science Show listeners to contribute to and discuss the program.

Comments are moderated. Before you contribute, we recommend you read our house rules.

Reply

Author

Email

Date/Time

22 Feb 2018 5:40:28pm

Text

PreviousMessage

Someone interested in and advocating scientific education should not be appealing to 'science as democracy' arguments in support of a particular curriculum. Yes there is a clear consensus of practicing scientists who "believe" in climate change. This is no reason to teach the conclusions of climate science in schools. There're plenty of examples in the history of science where the consensus has been wrong. What is important in scientific education (all education?) is that students are guided to use evidence and reason to draw their own INDEPENDENT conclusions. Of course we should be teaching climate science in our schools. That is, we should be discussing the nature of the empirical evidence and the reasoning that supports the proposed theories and conclusions. MOST importantly we should be discussing how and why these arguments could be wrong, that is, we should be sceptical and expose students to debate that tests the robustness of the conclusions. How has the scientific collective let "sceptic" become a dirty word? Why shouldn't evolution be taught alongside creation science? Are the evolutionists scared that their position won’t hold up to the scrutiny? Do we lack faith in young people to tackle the issues? Or do we think it's too hard for teachers to balance the competing positions in a coherent lesson? If yes - well spare a thought for the students! At some point children are going to have to confront the contradictions in these alternative positions, why should this not be done explicitly in the class room? There is no point teaching children that different species evolved from common ancestors - that, by itself, is just doctrine. What is important is the evidence (fossil records, natural diversity and natural selection in populations etc) and the theories used to explain evidence. If students absorb and understand the quality of the arguments but still choose to believe in creationism, well so be it. It's a free society and they'd make better dinner guests then the majority adults who "believe" in evolution but would struggle to articulate any argument in it's defence (as opposed to just denigrating "ignorant" creationists).Our own education minister, Peter Garret, in dismissing the idea that Australia should follow the UK example and teach alternative positions on climate change in schools, could only muster the predictable line that the consensus of scientific opinion is that human induced climate change is real. He appeared to completely miss the point that the real issue at stake in his area of responsibility was the quality of scientific education in schools. (I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt that this was deliberate for the obvious reasons of political convenience, but there's no evidence to support that). The last thing we need is a new generation who blindly appeal to the authority of scientists without any sense of how robust or otherwise its findings mig

Please note that there is limit per post of 3,000 characters, including spaces, carriage returns and punctuation (about 500 words). Your email address will not be published.